404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin , but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state .294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

This sounds to me as though the Catholic Church is teaching that not only is human nature corrupted because of Adam, but that all humans are born guilty of Adam’s sin because Adam’s guilt is imputed to all people.

The Church teaches that we inherit the stain of original sin. I have satisfied myself with this idea by observing that all humanity resides outside of the garden of Eden. The Bible shows how sin multiplied after the expulsion from Eden. The conditions outside of Eden are depicted as the result of sin and the cause of sin.

The Bible is not a history book or science book. It is teaching religious truths about God, creation, sin, salvation, etc.

So often Catholics will speak in terms of “what the Church teaches” because what the Church teaches is considered to be the teaching of God. “He who hears you hears me.” This teaching includes interpretation and understanding of scripture.

“Imputed” is a term with a negative connotation. It is unjust in this application, in the strictly literal sense. To impute guilt where none has objectively occurred is unjust. We do not worship an unjust God. We have naturally inherited the stain of that original disobedience, since Adam and Eve’s very nature, as it was with the entire earth, was forever altered. But, God in His mercy, has allowed water baptism to erase it.

This sounds to me as though the Catholic Church is teaching that not only is human nature corrupted because of Adam, but that all humans are born guilty of Adam’s sin because Adam’s guilt is imputed to all people.

No. It is not that “Adam’s guilt” is imputed to all people. Let’s look at it from another perspective: when you were conceived, what nature did you inherit from your parents? A monkey’s nature? An oak tree’s nature? Of course not! You inherited human nature.

The teaching of the Church is simply that human nature is a fallen nature, due to the sin of Adam. (This fallen nature requires a Savior in order to attain to heaven, BTW.) We don’t inherit guilt, we inherit human nature.

It depends what you mean by “guilt.” As the next part of the Catechism says:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

In the Church’s Latin judgments on this point (such as at the Council of Trent), “guilt” is more nuanced. The “guilt” of original sin is not a “culpa,” which is personal guilt for a sin committed, but rather a “reatus” which is more like a debt or deprivation, including an inherited one.

In the case of original sin, Adam was given certain supernatural gifts, but when he sinned, they were taken away and therefore his posterity are also born in that state of deprivation he caused. His nature was also corrupted, and that is handed on since our flesh is taken from our parents.

but that all humans are born guilty of Adam’s sin because Adam’s guilt is imputed to all people.

Are you referring to Adam, the individual person, or, are you referring to the allegorical Adam representing all humanity?

Imputing guilt from the guilty to the innocent goes against justice. We are not culpable for the actual and personal committed sin of the individual Adam. We are culpable for sinning through the allegorical Adam, i.e. “the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man”.

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned”. - Romans 5:12

How can a just God allow people to be conceived in a state of injustice when they have not even had the chance to commit an actual, personal sin? Because, in an allegorical and mystical way, we are implicated through the allegorical Adam; when the allegorical Adam ate the fruit, that represented you and me. Hence why we are conceived and born into a state of guilt.

To me, the idea that a newborn child is somehow condemned unless baptized because Grampa robbed a bank makes so little sense. So, I think it’s more a “theological construct” whereas it will be our nature to sin at times because we have free will. Since God can and will forgive those with a pure heart, whether they be a child or an adult who confesses to God and asks for His forgiveness, a single ritual by itself doesn’t appear to reach that standard one way or the other.

BTW, Catholic theologians are all over the place on this, but, yes, I’m aware I’m not touting the “company line” with the above. If one studies some of the history of the formation of Catholic teachings, what looks like being cut & dry today was often quite contentious when being debated centuries ago. Even something as simple as Whom does the Holy Spirit emanate from was VERY contentious.

“37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

To me, the idea that a newborn child is somehow condemned unless baptized because Grampa robbed a bank makes so little sense.

I’m not sure what analogy you are referring to I never heard the rob the bank one. The one I always hear is Grandpa lost your inheritance. Basically, we need God’s grace (God’s favor) to be saved. Adam lost God’s favor when he sinned and there is nothing left for us to inherit.

Metis1:

Since God can and will forgive those with a pure heart, whether they be a child or an adult who confesses to God and asks for His forgiveness, a single ritual by itself doesn’t appear to reach that standard one way or the other.

Well if this were true how come no one in the Old Testament went to heaven? The OT even points out instances of God forgiving someones sins, so why didn’t that person didn’t end up in heaven.

The short answer is they were lacking grace. How do we get grace? Through Christ. How did Christ set it up so we could have assurance that we received Grace? Baptism.

The thing to remember is we don’t do the “ritual” to force God to give us grace. Sacraments are efficacious signs. They help bring about the very reality they signify.

God knows we learn through our senses, so he set the sacraments up to appeal to our humanity.

I don’t mean to come off preachy or condescending, but think about your statement…

Metis1:

a single ritual by itself doesn’t appear to reach that standard one way or the other.

What seems more logical.
The guy that says Jesus said if I am born of water and spirit (Baptism) I can enter the kingdom of God, therefore I performed an outward sign (I was Baptized) and know Jesus inwardly healed me when He placed the mark of grace on my soul.

Or

The guy that says I don’t need to be Baptized because I know through my faith Jesus placed the mark of grace on my soul.

Personally, I can’t see what the big deal is. Just look all through the Gospels Jesus used outwards signs to perform a deeper more lasting spiritual healing. Notice he used physical means. Mud, spittle, spoken words, and eye contact. He didn’t do it for His benefit, He did it for ours.

The latest science of epigenetics supports this idea of original sin. Basically one’s behavior in this life can affect gene expression which is passed on to offspring. Here’s an older article on epigenetics:

Think of it instead as simply an acknowledgment that eternal beatitude is strictly a gift from God–it is something greater than our nature. That’s why all need His grace.

The other consequences of original sin–that our fundamentally good nature is wounded–seems obvious to me just looking at the world.

I certainly don’t have problem with the above but with one caveat, namely that the traditional concept of “original sin” simply cannot and does not explain why innocent people are harmed or killed by natural disasters, miscarriages, and the like. So, for me, it means more along the line that it may be a reference to our “human nature” through “free will” that we will sin, thus needing forgiveness.

You’re pretty much “preaching to the choir” here with the exception that I have no belief in a literalistic account of A & E and the Fall. To me, I tend to strongly lean in the direction of these accounts being allegorical with the intent of teaching basic Jewish world views and morals.

You’re pretty much “preaching to the choir” here with the exception that I have no belief in a literalistic account of A & E and the Fall.

I personally don’t believe in the literalistic account either seeing that we had light before God created the sun.

The main point I was trying to approach was it seemed your were saying the ritual of Baptism doesn’t appear to reach the standard of someone confessing to God with a pure heart.

The only think I was trying to show was that there is no way we can know we are confessing with a pure heart. Sure we can feel like our heart is pure and we can feel sorry, but how do we know that equates to a pure heart.

That was the point I was trying to make, God knows this, He knows it is human nature to “fool” ourselves. That is why he gave us the ritual, to appeal to our humanity.

Not trying to “preach to the choir” here. I’m just not seeing how what I posted led you to believe I was speaking about Genesis only being able to be read literally?